Let's talk government -- TTT government

[timfarney]

Some folks are getting uncomfortable with talking about the problems with the old TTT, me included.

Some folks are getting uncomfortable with the idea of excluding anyone, me included.

So let's talk about the future and the few, seldom-to-be-used rules the mods will use to keep this place happy and free to include anyone willing to follow them. I humbly submit the following, from Cosmic's "I'm kinda bummed" thread, with a few edits, as a conversation starter:

"Yep. When I went over there to post the message to make sure no stragglers beyond the unnamed few felt abandoned, I felt uncomfortable -- every time I named (or referred to) the unnamed few. And I'll tell you what: As far as I'm concerned they are welcome. It's the behaviors that caused all of this that are not welcome.

I've reached the point that, if it were up to me alone, I'd invite them, after we establish what the rules are. And I'd be happy to take an opening shot at that:

1) No personal attacks

2) No baiting

3) No name-calling, and that includes the groups and beliefs individuals belong to as well as the individuals themselves

4) The fluid, situational definitions of all of the above are at the sole discretion of the moderators and on-line discussions of the moderators' decisions are the biggest no of all. Action against rules violations go from notification to locked or deleted threads to temporary posting ban to permanent total ban, also at the discretion of the moderators.

If anybody thinks that gives moderators too much power, we could form a committee that discusses alll potential bans with the moderators before any action is taken. That same committee could consult with moderators if they thought a locked or deleted thread was uncalled for, and members could appeal to the committee, offline, if they thought they were unfairly put on notice. Personally, I don't think that's necessary. I trust the folks we've picked as mods to be fair.

Communicate those rules and enforce them, and I'd be happy to invite anyone here. That's beginning to sound a bit like government (sorry d), but I think it might be necessary. If we allow online discussion of moderator's decisions, it'll get worse, not better.

Thoughts?

Tim"

tim

[iamjohnne]

I for one agree with Tim. We are a society and a society has to have rules in order to survive.

[Doug]

Like I said in the other thread, I disagree but I'll go along.

We did fine for 3 yrs over there with no rules. Didn't have problems till people started calling for others to be banned.

[Cribbs]

Tim, I have been typing, a little at a time, some basic guidelines. Once I get them narrowed down, I will review it with the other mods, then throw it out for everyone to look at. I want everyone to be able to agree on them and have input.

I am using some guidelines from other forums that I mod on to help out. I wholeheartedly agree with your recommendations.

We are working behind the scenes to get our "constitution" written, and we need folks thoughts!

Cribbsy

[timfarney]

Thanks, Cribbs. Sounds like a good process.

Tim

[millring]

This isn't a suggestion of the "rule" variety, rather, something to chew on. Maybe you'll disagree. But...

I believe that SO much animosity could be spared if we all just thought twice about:

1 cheerleading. If you're not adding some new insight, some additional information to the "debate", you are merely spreading unnecessary ill will when you purposely join the thread just to take a side.

And if you merely repeat what another has said, you're likely just inflaming both sides -- one by cheerleading for his opponent, and the other by implying that they are less than capable of framing their side of the debate.

And it isn't "peacemaking" to come into an arguement and declare both sides equally wrong -- unless, of course, they are.

2. Quoteables I have SUCH mixed feelings about this because I really love it when we highlight the wit, the intelligence, the compassionate good feelings that are so often expressed here.

But a MAJORITY of the quoteables was ALWAYS about amplifying one side of a debate from another thread -- and in a way that the person who was put down was expected to not respond. It's just inherently unfair and inflammatory.

[Supertramp78]

What Millring said...... oh wait, is that cheerleading? Damn!

[billhammond]

I thought Teeder did a fine job of quote selecting -- to my recollection, it was only when political combatants started using the Quoteables thread that things got negative and unfunny.

[John B]

it was only when political combatants started using the Quoteables thread that things got negative and unfunny.

From my recollection, the majority of the posts (say, 50.1%) were used politically.

[Shannon]

My presupposition was that this forum was intended from the beginning to be a moderated forum, with all that entails. I'm heartily in favor of that.

I think the moderator choices are excellent, and I would trust their judgment.

And Doug, I would submit that my role in suggesting the banishment of anyone was the wrong thing to do. I lost my head a little bit. But I think there were bigtime problems before that event. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been such an event.

But then, I'm the sort who actually likes rules, so what do I know?

[Doug]

Shannon,

It was long before your little foray into banning.
I think it started with Lush wanting to ban people about 3 mo. ago.

[Supertramp78]

I posted this over on the "Bummed" thread where this idea started so I thought I would put it here too. (it also helps keep my posting numbers higher than Bill's for a few hours)

This is just how I feel about jumping into rule making right away.


In an ideal world there would never be a need to ban anyone. There really wasn't the need to do it on the old board. The issue was when people posted things that really upset people and when informed of that fact took the position of, "So?" Or when multiple people pointed ot that something you did was driving people away, the answer was still basically,"So?"

Some people work and play well with others. Some people don't. The good news is they are often really easy to spot. I've seen boards (the UMGF comes to mind) where a thread could get yanked if you forgot to put a Cap M on Martin. I would hope that the absolute harshest action taken by a moderator on this board is to lock a thread and as I said yesterday, I hope I never have to actually do anything.

So before we start thinking up rules and regs to deal with issues we don't have yet, let's see how things go. Considering the fact that everyone is here because they needed a breath of fresh air, I say we let the air clear for a few days. Emotions are still a bit frayed and times like these are not good for making any long term decisions about anything.

[ducktrapper]

I'd agree with Millring but I don't want to cheerlead. I disliked TDR's "private Quotations thread". It basically belittled those he disagreed with and flattered those he did. Definitely unfair and inflammatory, imo.

[PaulKay]

Being "The moderator" at the "other" place, I can say that much of what I see going on now is very much what I saw when we first moved in to that "other" forum. A bit of euphoria with the new digs went on for quite awhile because it was in contrast with the nastiness they left at the original Talk forum. And as noted, things did go fine for a good 2-3 years before it all started to go south. So I would strongly endorse having rules established, published and at least used to remind people that they exist. 9 times out of 10, that will generally be sufficient I think. Having no rules only invites problems.

"A cop can pull you over for speeding, but he doesn't have to give you ticket. He has the option of letting you off with a warning."

[j]

"3) No name-calling, and that includes the groups and beliefs individuals belong to as well as the individuals themselves"

YES, YES, PLEASE YES. Call me a NoCal leftie, but stereotyping really makes my blood boil.

I agree with Tramp as well. Banning should NEVER be necessary. I think that in most cases locking/deleting a thread should be enough.

J

[mccoyblues]

As I stated in a different thread there are already rules in place. Very specific rules. I see no need to re-state or add anything to the agreement that all of us accepted to register.

I would hate to see banning, thread locks or deleted topics, but I don't want to see language used that is abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, defamatory or a personal attack on any individual either.

I saw alot of that in the our previous home and I want no part of it. I have no problem enforcing the rules of the forum.

[Gypsy Picker]

Regarding TDR's Quotables thread, I really enjoyed it. I suspect I didn't sense as much of the political motivation as Millring because I wasn't as engaged in those debates as he was. Sometimes I'd go and read a thread (that I specifically hadn't before because of it's inherent politicalness) solely because of a quote I read in the Quotables. I agree that it was a de facto private thread, and perhaps a new one here should be de facto open to all.

[j]

so I can't say poopy?

Mccoy, I'm not trying to mock here. Maybe I should start another thread.

[Supertramp78]

The quote thread was abused as often as it was enlightening. Some would use it to pull something out of context and wave it in people's faces. That got old.

[Cornflake]

I was going to say: let's not make any rules until the need arises. Then I read Paul K.'s post and decided I was probably wrong.

I hope we keep the rules minimal. As far as I'm concerned, "keep it civil" is really the only rule we need. If experience shows that we need more, we can deal with the matter then.